Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar speaks on judicial accountability, reminds MPs of NJAC Bill

Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar conducts proceedings of the House during the Budget session of Parliament in New Delhi on March 21, 2025.
| Photo Credit: Sansad TV via PTI

Before the Supreme Court clarified on Friday (March 21, 2025) that the proposed transfer of a Delhi High Court judge was not related to fire incident at his official residence, Opposition members in the Rajya Sabha raised the issue on the floor of the House. Congress chief whip Jairam Ramesh, referred to a news report that claimed that fire brigade personnel had allegedly recovered “huge cash” from the official residence of the said judge during a fire fighting operation.

Without naming the judge, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep said if the “malaise” had been dealt with, perhaps the country would not have countenanced such kind of issues. The Vice President referred to the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill (NJAC) and said the historic legislation “endorsed by this Parliament with unprecedented consensual support unknown to parliamentary history of this country dealt with the malaise very severely”. “If the malaise had been dealt with perhaps we would not have countenanced such kind of issues. What bothers me is that the incident happened and did not immediately surface,” he added.

Also read: Issue cannot be hushed up by mere transfer: Congress on Delhi HC judge cash discovery row

Earlier, Mr. Ramesh, citing Mr. Dhankhar’s stand on judicial accountability, sought his statement the issue of “a shocking case of huge amounts of cash unearthed at the residence of a judge of the Delhi High Court.” He also reminded the Chairman that 50 members of Parliament had submitted a notice for the removing a judge of Allahabad High Court for making unacceptable remarks.

Mr. Dhankhar, responding to Mr. Ramesh on the notice by MPs, said he is seized of a representation by 55 members of the House and has taken all necessary steps to get their verification. “First mail was sent to all of them and the good thing is most of the members have responded positively, helping me perform my duty. Some members are yet to do. A mail reiterating the same has been sent to them. I have taken all procedural steps but I must share with you one concern that is engaging my attention. Of the 55 members who signed the representation, a member’s signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature. Now I do not wish to get into this act which may graduate to culpability to a higher level. If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly. Therefore, most of the members have cooperated. Those members who have not done so far, may please do it in response to the second mail sent to them. Then the process will not be delayed at my level even for a moment,” he said.

Also read: Parliament Budget Session Day 8 highlights

On the issue of Delhi High Court judge, Mr. Dhankhar said he had pleaded with the Leader of the House, JP Nadda, that the House needs to know the status of the collective exercise of Parliament on judicial accountability. “You all will recollect if the mechanism which was passed by this house with near unanimity, with no dissension, only one abstention in Rajya Sabha, all political parties converging, going in for the initiative of the government. I wish to find out the status of that which emanated from Indian Parliament made sacrosanct by endorsement of 16 state assemblies in the country and signed by the Hon’ble President under article 111 of the Constitution,” he said.

“If it happens with a politician, he becomes a target, a bureaucrat, an industrialist immediately and therefore systemic response which is transparent, accountable, effective, I am sure will be on the way. I will get in touch with Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition and find a mechanism for a structured discussion during course of the session subject to their agreement. I said last I discussed with them,” he added.

Meanwhile, Congress MP Manish Tewari told reporters in Parliament, “Going by the report, the Supreme Court collegium seems to have taken cognisance of the matter. So let us wait and see as to what the Supreme Court collegium decides about the matter”.